I expect you must use a different Make from the one I do? Points #2 and #3 much more accurately characterise my experience with Make than my experience with oth

I expect you must use a different Make from the one I do? Points #2 and #3 much more accurately characterise my experience with Make than my experience with other tools. #2 may be universally true, but Make does seem to get you to the tipping point much sooner. I've found #5 only true if the solution to #4 consists entirely of one phony target, listing the commands to be run, one after another. There's nothing wrong with using Make like this, and it does have some advantages over a Bash script with set -v -x -e at the top, but this isn't a great advertisement for Make's usability. (In fact, regarding "if you just had a tool that handled all that minutiae and that if everyone used it that everything would be roses" - yes, I have found that everything is roses when you do this ;) Building stuff that uses Autotools or CMake, horrid as they are, is almost always pretty straightforward! Stuff that comes with a "simple" Makefile is rather likely to require at least some work. Even simple missing dependency/wrong compiler version issues result in much more cryptic error messages.)